LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2169, 6 June 1914, Page 14

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT.

SLIP ON PIPE IN ADAMS TERRACE CORPORATION LIABLE. JURY FIND FOR £150 DAMAGES Before Hia Honour the Chief Justice and a jury of. twelve in the Supreme Court yesterday, Jessie Aitcheson, widow, sued tho Wellington City' Corporation for £1000 damages for. injuries received as the result of a fall caused by slipping on a-projecting gaspipe in Adams Terrace. Mr. T. Neave and.Mr.. T. S. Smith appeared for plaintiff, and tho City Solicitor (Mr. J. O'Shea) for the corporation. • • - , Evldenco for Plaintiff. Mrs. Aitcheson, the plaintiff, stated in evidence that one evening in October last sho was going down Adams Terrace to Aro Street when she slipped on a projecting gas-pipe. There was no light iu tho vicinity. She fell heavily, and stayed without moving for some time, imagining that she had broken her leg. With the help of her daughtor she reached the tram/ and went to J)r. Ewart's. She had visited Dr. iSwart five times' within a fortnight, and had since been examined by other medical men. She had hot been able to do her usual work sinco the accident. To Mr. O'Shea: She had seen - Dr. Gibbs, but neither he nor Dr. Ewart gave her a certificate. She had not reported the accident to the corporation, nor had sho reported that sho was incapacitated for work. Dr. A. M. Tolhurst said that lie had examined tho plaintiff. Her present | condition mijjlit bo due to injury to cither tho ankle joint or to au external nerve, which affected • tho control of the foot. She was able to put the foot into the normal position, but then suffered pain along tho courso of the nerve. -Without effort,■ the foot was in the position characteristic of "club foot," and the condition was ono which could be cured or improved by suitable treatment, extending probably over six months. The condition would bo aggravated by walking if it were not treated. To Mr. O'Shea; Tho indications were compatible with a fall sustained. years tS.eforo. as Well as a more recent ono. The prescriptions produced-were ones that would have been used for an injury of long standing;'they wero not what ho would use for a recent injury. , Dr. C. M. Bcgg said that ho examined plaintiff three months after the time that sho said sho had fallen. . Tho ankle was then puffy, and there was some inversion of tho foot'. He thought that, tho condition of- tho foot was permanent. May Aitcheson, daughter of the plain-tiff,-described her mother's fall and subsequent visits to Dr. Ewart. ■ He gave her mother a' prescription arid told' her to continue using it. He also said that the injury was-'very serious and might ultimately affect the use'of her leg. C'arolino Ferris, living in Adams Terrace, said the pipe in question had been in the same state for four years.

other Evidence. "William Baker, fitter employed by the Wellington Gas Company, said that lie laid a pipe in Adams ferraoo on November 10, 1906. Tho road was not made, therei was no footpath, and the pipe was laid in clay in its natural stato. Tho pipe figuring in this case was tho ono which 'ho laia, and he had buried it properly. , Albert Hadfield, also a fitter for the Wellington Gas Company, described the locality and work- whicli ho had done on pipes. Dr. J. Ewnrt, called for the defence stated that the plaintiff called on him on October 24, but he did not remember what took place. If plaintiff had told hinrthat she had just injured her anklo he would not have given' her the prescription produced. It was ono for a chronic condition. He had seen her again on January 15, and again quite recently. The second prescription might have been for an injury cither recent or clironic. The condition of tho patient was neurathenic, and would probably bo cured in timo. It was a condition frequently cured by damages. There was no sign of any injury to "the foot. The X-ray photographs produced snowed nothing abnormal at all. The foot could bo put into its proper position by proper manipulation. Had she como to him directly after an accident he would have put tho foot in a splint and sent her to ljed. Evidence was also given by Dr. M. Holmes, who considered the case ono of neurasthenia, pure and simple. J. M. Hide,. corporation foreman; J. W. M'Loan, corporation employee; Dr. H. E. Gibbs, who said there were no objective symptoms of injury, no stiffness, and no adhesion; George E.' Knapp, messenger to the City Council, who said that he had during the day seen plaintiff walking with both feet planted flat on tho ground; Ernest M. Beechey, who said that plaintiff had a slight limp , and Dr. H. A. Gilmor, who stated that plaintiff put her foot' straight without effort or pain while he wae examining Judgment for Plaintiff. 'After counsel had addressed the jury, and his Honour had summed up, the jury retired, and after an absence of an hour and a. half returned with the following answers to tho issues submitted to them:— Was the footpath so constructed ae to expose the gaspipe?--"Yes." Was tho plaintiff injured by falling on the gaspipe?—"Yes." What damage, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover?—"£lso." Judgment was entered lor plaintiff for £150, with costs as per scale, witnesses' expenses and disbursements, and allowanco for second counsel.

INTERESTING INSURANCE CASE. STILL UNFINISHED: The action brought by Fred Hague, of TJtiku, against the Norwich and Loudon Accident Insurance Association to recover £263 lUs. 7d. on an accident insurance policy, was continued in the Supreme Court yesterday before His Honour Mr. Justice Hoskmg and a jury of four. Mr. C. B. Collins, of Wangauui, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. A.' A. S. ivienteath for defendants. District insurance Manager's Evidence. •H. H. Thomson, district manager at Wanganui for the Norwich and London Accident Insurance Association, called for tho defence, gave evidence regarding plaintiff's connection with the company and various negotiations that had taken place between them. During 1913 lie frequently wrote to Hague asking for particulars connected with his. insurance. Ho got no reply,.and did not see plaintiff personally on the matter until Haguo called oii him in Yfangamii on January 20, 1914, with reference to Carlton's death. Ho told Hague that he was sure that his company would not recognise a death claim in the caso of Carlton, but, as Hague had been doing business with the insurance company for a good long time, he would try to aiTiingo so that the company would pay Carlton's funeral expenses. Hague said that he did not want that: What he desired to know was that ho was safe with regard to his tiro other

employees, who tyotc married men. Upou Hague givyng him a. cheque for tho premium, witness g<tvo him a receipt renewing his uvsurnneo prticy. Subsequently Mr. Maekay, solicitor, of Wanganui, called m him atid told him that 011 behalf of Mrs, Gariten ho was taking ■ out a writ feu: £500 against Hague, and asked, witness to retjttest tho company's solicitor to accept service. Ho told Mr. Mackay that there could ho nothing hi the etaiin. as Hague had told, him that ho did net "think that Carlton was not a married man. Ho wrofe to the head offee, oh tho matter on February 16, and received tfit> following reply:— "Rβ Hague, writ must bo served on him; wo cannot accept liability as polioy with us lapsed last year*. ■ Did you know of accident when issuing renewal receipt, as explanation given .will n<M satisfy.—Norwich." The company had never •■ departed from that attitude. Hα certainly had mover advised .the head office that Hajruo's policy bad.'not lapsed. Ho denied absolutely having written to Hague in December Stating that he was keeping him covered. In February, 191.4, he received a fetter..from Hague enclosing a letter torn Mrs, Catltoij. Hague expressed tho belief that the Mrs. Carlton who was Blaimkg compensation was not the husband" til the Carlton .who was killed in his service. Phrases Usod In Renewals, To Mr. Collins: In, his official communications he variously described himself as "district__managet" and "district aßont." Ho w«s.<juit& sure that ho only wrote two letters to Hague in 1913, —in February and a few mo&ths later—telling him hfi Was being Jtept covered. Tho espreSsioa used ;tt. lath letters, was "we have b.e«t keeping you fully covered." 'To His Honour: Iji foufchre letters re~ Rarding renewals the phrase used was, "Wo have been keeping yau eovered," or,-in some,instances, "Wβ are te&ptag you covered for thirty days from- date." When the expression "\V«> have,been keeping you,covered" was used) it was an indication that they were willing to. renew the policy. He would not pay that that «expreesi.oii was used iu £hd letter to Hague in; July, 1913. •To Mr. Collins: He tad not usod tho form "meantime, We aro. holding you . insured" with agents or th© public for: Bereral years; To His Honour; He received about half his premiums' JB the due data. When tho premiums were not so paid ' he sometimes rang the peoplfeu:j>. others he saw, and in regard to others bs took , no action at all. In the. case ef some whom ho. believed wero going te re*. insure ho would send a cover-note, Tho thirty days' cover-notes were seijt to: persons who had not reuewe'd on duo , date, and also in th.e caso'of -lie* risks. There wore exceptional crses where the 1 cover was extended b&yofld the thirty j days.. He sometimes. used tho form "We have been keeping yo« iasiireij," but there would be no record iiihts let-ter-book of such a.-form fceifig tised. To Mr. Menteathi S<* did not advise tho head office of Hague's paymettt af £4 7s. in January, as'premium for the :thencurrcnt year uiitjl February 16,■ although he had paid t».'the money to the company's credit in the bsflk." Head Offiiio EvidefiCi!. Alfred W. _ HazWood,' in chatgo.."ef the , accident insurance-of the-defendant company's business k th<> Wellington office, gave evidence regarding the recording of insurances. A policy -svas not written off as "lapsed*' until the London office iiad teen advised, probably six months after the due date. Iα thecase of Mr. Johnson's office, -thfiro was only two months in which a .policy could be Tenewed. The -first arthnotioe which ho had that Johnston bad at e cepted Hague's promium after eleven months was on Febrttary IS, To His Honour: Mr. Biomsc-ft was one of two or three' ag.ctits who did not return the monthly lists -oi "renetved'- , and "lapsed" policies. ' 'To Mr. Collins: If 1 )B had known thai Haguo's policy was eoveietl ho would not have written it off as tensed But there could be no sijeh covef. The feet of Tliomson telling Hague that he Was insured was of so-use'to Hsgno or to the company. After a discussion oh legal points the addressing of the jury bv learned counsel ivas adjourned until tilis isernirifj.